A quick question about reviews

An interesting point was raised during episode 22 of Rebel FM, and while the guys may not have dwelt on the subject much, I felt that it was worth a brief discussion. The question was asked during talk about Tiger Woods 10, which host Tyler Barber just reviewed for Gamespy. When his five out of five score was mentioned, fellow rebel, Arthur Gies, asked him, "How do you feel rating that game as someone who hasn't played other Tiger Woods games?".

This is a very valid question, and one that applies to all video game franchises. Should the reviewer of a sequel be someone who's played all the others, or someone completely fresh to the series? After all, this could make a huge difference to the final score. This is especially true about sports games, as they tend to be released once a year, with sometimes only minor upgrades from previous versions. Someone fresh to the series may love parts that veterans have become bored with over time, where as someone who's played every other version may only be able to judge the new one against previous years, not on it's own merits.

I've already established that I prefer original games to sequels. I just find the biggest thrill comes from experiencing something new; gameplay aspects that I haven't already already mastered in previous titles. Therefore, if I were reviewing a game series, I would be most likely to score each one lower than the last, unless there were dramatic improvements that changed things significantly. I would also judge any game against similar titles that had come out recently, some of which may have raised the bar in certain areas. I feel that this is fair, and would give people an idea of how the game stacked up, in the grand scheme of things.

But for every hardcore gamer who's been following a franchise for years, there's a brand new console owner who's just discovering a series (or even genre) for the very first time. They don't know that the game they just bought is almost identical to nine that came before, or that a similar, some would say better, title was released last year. And why should they care? To them, every aspect is going to be fresh and original, and they would be best served by reviewers who are in the same boat.

So ideally, every sequel would have two reviewers: One who's familiar with the entire series, and one who's brand new to it. You could even go a step further and chose a reviewer who doesn't play that particular genre much, bringing an entirely fresh perspective. However, I realize that this is asking a lot from sites that are already struggling to get reviews up in time, so I leave the question up to you: Do you think sequels should be reviewed by veterans or noobs?